This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Does media source cause you to embrace or reject claims based on percieved biases?

Re: News source tribalism

Originally Posted by Smeagol

I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that individuals subscribe to ideological groups who they are attracted to for whatever the reason. It might be culture related, family upbringing...the variable are many. And we're all biased by our environments in one way or another. But it's probably more complicated than exposure to family, culture, or other environments as to why people believe what they do about politics, religion, government, etc, etc, etc.

But the problem is: Whose truth? People are often given misinformation or just plain lies by ideological groups that they subscribe to. I don't think there's any exemptions regardless of the purpose of the ideological group - including religious related. Without further inspection as to the reliability or validity of information disseminated by their respective ideological groups, subscribers simply accept the information and deem it to be "the truth". Some will bet their lives on it.

Hell, there are a lot of people who can't discern the difference between opinion and hard news. You can image what "truth" must look like to them.

Re: News source tribalism

Originally Posted by Smeagol

I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.

Re: News source tribalism

Originally Posted by Smeagol

Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?

Re: News source tribalism

Originally Posted by Smeagol

Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?

None. Ever.

There's no neutrality in politics or it wouldn't be politics. Politics is opposition. Both Left and Right fail to appreciate how their own validity will only ever be as good as that of their opposition's, being ideologically symbiotic. They mistakenly believe they could exist at all independently. This is why neither side ever prevailed, or ever will.

I'd suggest a case-by-case appraisal, with no attempt to either apply your conclusions universally or preserve any outcome into perpetuity. Once you take the broader view, you'll always be several steps ahead of both sides, shackled as they are to their impossible ideologies. Of course you'll never be supported, but it's a negligible deficit in return for clarity. Whatever the positions of your sources, unless they're purely mathematical in content, they never come without an ideological price tag.

As a rule of thumb, don't sweat 'sources' unless they originate within fringe extremism. Other than that, the person criticising you is equally FOS if not more so. Especially when s/he's of the Con-Lib duality. That ****'s for kids.

Re: News source tribalism

Originally Posted by Smeagol

Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?

I try to refer to source information as much as I can. Generally speaking, the report that I first see is an interpretation of other data so I try as best I can to locate that source. Doing things that way seems to cut out a lot of the spin but if it's a significant issue I'll still go to sites from multiple political leans to pick up the various interpretations. Having the source information allows me to judge the quality of those interpretations.

Re: News source tribalism

Originally Posted by Smeagol

I was just talking to a friend who says someone he had a conversation with completely rejected a claim solely because the source wasn't a part of his ideological tribe. I think a lot of people are simply more committed to their side than they are the truth.

I'd absolutely agree with that.

We see it all the time around here when someone posts something from Fox. For many folks all they need to see is that the article is linked to Fox (whether it originated there or not) and the blinders come down.

Re: News source tribalism

These days I only use the Economist and BBC as reliable sources. I don't frequent other sites but will generally believe most news stories if they're from mainstream media (CNN, FOX, etc...). I believe that where the difference lies are the subtle bias underlined in the reported news and the outright bias in the editorials and op-eds. That's why I prefer the Economist and BBC.

"The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

Re: News source tribalism

1) Source and its history. Daily Mail and its history of making **** up and supporting fascists.. that is a factor in taking them seriously or not.
2) Admitted political leaning. Some news organisations admit that they support X party or leaning, hence their news reporting has to be viewed in that context. Those organisations that dont admit a political leaning and clearly show that they favour one over the other, are actually the most dangerous.
3) Multiple sources saying the same thing.. sources from across the political spectrum if possible.
4) Facts
5) Logic
6) Facts
7) Facts

All news organisations have bias of some sort, but it is to the degree and the consistency they are biased. Certain organisations are biased all the time, others are some of the time and others yet again rarely biased.. but they are all biased.

Bias has nothing per say to do with political leaning but the inability to give the facts as uncut as possible and let the viewer make his or her mind up based on those facts.

Just because you dont agree with what a news organisation is saying does not mean it is biased. It is biased if it is not giving you all the facts or promoting a certain view point over others or even worse...hiding facts that debunk the view that the news organisation is trying to promote.

Re: News source tribalism

Originally Posted by Smeagol

Ever since I got slammed for a post I made elsewhere, I have been particularly cautious about what source I'm using when providing documentation for comments I make. No matter how truthful something may be, for many political hacks simply being reported by a media source they've classified as on the opposition's team, the validity of the documentation must be outright rejected for no other reason than their seeing the source as coming from their opposition.

Are you careful to use neutral sources to document your positions? Are you likely to dismiss claims if you perceive the source to be on your opposition's team? What media sources do you consider neutral?

I use sources that I perceive to be unbiased or whose bias I believe to know. If I expect a difference of opinion to surface I check the source at least against two or three opposing positions.